P. McGregor Enterprises, Inc. v. Hicks Construction Group, LLC, 420 S.W.3d 45

McGregor contracted with Hicks for a new Ashmore Inn addition in Lubbock, Texas.
Hicks solicited bids for framing, drywall, EFIS, roof trusses, and roof decking; Denman submitted two bids, finalizing at $413,400 with per diem for Denman employees.
Denman’s bid stated it would be the subcontractor for the referenced scope and included a per diem provision; Hicks accepted the second bid and a contract was signed June 25, 2001.
McGregor terminated Hicks on April 1, 2002; Denman completed work and submitted a final invoice which McGregor paid mid-May 2002.
McGregor filed suit December 2, 2003 alleging negligent construction, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy; Amarillo project claims were arbitrated and severed.
The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Denman and Nance; McGregor appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McGregor has third-party beneficiary or direct contract rights against Denman.	McGregor contends it is a third-party beneficiary or has a direct contract via final payment.	No clear third-party beneficiary in Hicks–Denman contract; no direct contract terms with McGregor.	No third-party beneficiary; no direct contract between McGregor and Denman.
Whether Denman breached express or implied warranties.	McGregor seeks breach of contract and implied warranties against Denman.	No contract between McGregor and Denman; no warranties owed.	Denman and Nance entitled to summary judgment on breach of contract and express/implied warranties.
Whether McGregor can pursue negligence against Denman under the economic loss rule.	McGregor pleads tort claim for negligent work by subcontractor.	Economic loss rule bars tort claims where only contractual remedies exist.	Economic loss rule bars McGregor’s negligence claim; no viable tort claim against Denman.
Whether McGregor’s civil conspiracy and fraud claim survives no-evidence review.	There was a conspiracy between Hicks and Denman to defraud McGregor.	No meeting of the minds or admissible evidence of conspiracy; speculative evidence insufficient.	No genuine evidence of conspiracy; no-evidence summary judgment proper.

Corpus Christi Bank & Trust v. Smith, 525 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1975) (presumption against third-party beneficiary status in absence of clear intent)
Raymond v. Rahme, 78 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002) (presumption against third-party beneficiary status; contract must show clear intent)
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1986) (economic loss rule for contractual disputes in tort)
Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011) (economic loss rule applies to product/contract defect; statutory or common law remedies preferred for certain losses)
Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. v. Nortex Oil & Gas Corp., 435 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. 1969) (elements of civil conspiracy requiring meeting of minds)
Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Morris, 981 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. 1998) (conspiracy elements: combination, object, meeting of minds, overt acts, damages)
Utica Nat’l Ins. Co. of Tex. v. McDonald, 814 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1991) (evidentiary requirement: need independent proof of conspiracy beyond hearsay)
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidence standard for summary judgment and probative standard)